Pages

Friday, May 11, 2012

A Call for Ethics

This morning I came across a YouTube clip that I live tweeted and also made available on my blog. It's a sad clip, filled with an enormous amount of misinformation. I was aghast to discover a credentialed mental health professional spewing some of the misinformation. Her actions, to me, violate the ethics and responsibilities of someone in our field. In that it is incumbent upon me as a licensed psychologist to seek a resolution of ethical dilemmas directly with the offending individual, when possible, I have sent out this letter today:

May 11, 2012

Julie Harren Hamilton, Ph.D., LMFT

P.O. Box 1382

West Palm Beach, FL 33402

Dear Dr. Hamilton:

It is my obligation as an ethical psychologist to directly address
other psychotherapists who are engaged in behaviors that I believe are
unethical. In watching the video published on YouTube by the Family Research Council,
I became concerned about your work as a representative of NARTH as well as within
your private counseling practice.

Specifically, you state:

“While the general public seems to believe that people are born gay and
can’t change, that has not been the conclusion of researchers.”

Let me not mince words here Julie, you are simply wrong. There is no
credible evidence in any peer reviewed journal that provides substantive empirical
evidence to suggest that so-called reparative therapy is effective or ethical.
Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Administrators,
American Counseling Association, American Federation of Teachers, American
School Counselor Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance
Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association
of Secondary School principals, National Association of Social Workers, National
Educational Association, and School Social Work Association of America have all
taken the position that “homosexuality
is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be
cured” (APA, Sexual Orientation and Youth, 2008, pg. 6). Your own professional
association, the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, also
states that “same sex orientation is not a mental disorder. Therefore, we do
not believe that sexual orientation in and of itself requires treatment or
intervention.” (AAMFT Board of Directors, July 31, 2005)

In the YouTube clip, you continue:

“There are many people who claim that it’s harmful for a therapist to
try to help someone change in their sexual orientation and so when clients come
in saying I have these attractions—these homosexual attractions and I don’t
want to be gay there are many people who say that therapists should not assist
those clients in achieving the goals for their lives because it is harmful yet
the research reveals it is not harmful. There have never been research studies
that have concluded that therapeutic attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful.
In fact, it’s unethical not to assist a client in seeking to accomplish their
goals for their lives, including their goals of living a life beyond their
homosexual attraction.”

Again Julie, the evidence here is that reparative therapist is harmful,
doesn’t work, and shouldn’t be done. Your public statements are not consistent
with the professional literature. You are misrepresenting science and your
field. Your apparent failure to understand the literature is putting those you
serve at great potential risk for harm.

I’m deeply concerned that the patients you see become trapped in
therapy and are not given ample opportunity to both consider the effects of
discrimination, oppression, and misinformation about sexual orientation as well
as what their faith teaches about sexual orientation. Further, I am concerned that
you misrepresent the professional knowledge about sexual orientation to your
patients causing them additional potential harm.

I am writing to ask that you
practice within the established professional guidelines and that you meet your
ethical responsibilities. Be truthful about the data, do not misrepresent the
science, and assure that each of your patients are afforded the opportunity to
explore their experience both within the context of their own faith as well as
within the context of an understanding of oppression.

I further ask that you respond to these ethical concerns, in writing,
so I can be assured your patients are receiving the best possible treatment and
care. If I do not hear from you in a timely manner I will assume you are not
interested in clearing up these ethical concerns and I will issue a complaint
with your professional association and/or licensing body to seek assurances
that you are practicing in an ethical manner.

4 comments:

Oh, Anonymous, Dr. Julie Hamilton did indeed respond, if you call it that. She utilized portions of my letter to write a blog post of her own to continue her pseudo-science propaganda campaign. You can read her blog post here: http://bit.ly/Lb2VBt -- strangely there are no comments allowed on her post. Apparently while she was in her doctoral program she didn't learn the importance of full-throated academic dialogue. I think she really just wants to hear herself, and information that confirms her narrow world view. You might like to keep your eye on my companion blog, NARTH Info, for my on going response to Dr. Hamilton and anyone else whom I find engaging in unethical behavior. You can find that blog here: http://narthinfo.blogspot.com/

She probably never opened up to comments because her information speaks for itself and is backed by the sources she cited. Would you please provide sources for your information that reparative therapy is harmful, doesn’t work, and shouldn’t be done? I believe her statements have been very consistent with the professional literature and I for one do not see any misrepresentation. She is very outstanding in fact to come up against a quickly changing society that appears to be more concerned with a politically correct agenda than it is with accurate information.

Harrington, NARTH, and others of their ilk are practicing outside of both the guidelines of the professional community, the professional literature, and now the laws of the state of California. Your comment that her statements “have been very consistent with the professional literature” is just simply false. NARTH produces junk science to support their own opinions. It’s not science. They offer no actual facts and no rigorous scholarship. They offer opinions, based on their values, and hide behind pseudo-science quackery.

What you are really attempting to engage in is a dialogue about values and morals. You apparently believe that it is immoral for two men or two women to love each other. I believe otherwise.

Should you wish to engage in a dialogue about values and morals, I’m more than happy to join you in that. Ground your comments in your own values and morals, don’t use pseudo-scientific poppycock and claptrap.

About Me

I am a licensed psychologist in private practice on Harvard Square in Cambridge. I work with adolescents and adults both individually and in groups. On a more personal note, I have an avid interest in stories, including those told through literature movies, and the spoken word; and through the metaphors of music, art, photography, and dance. I try to balance the seriousness of psychotherapy with a gentle and irreverent sense of humor.